/m/tigers

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Heck of a pitcher. I remember him late in his career in the NL, particularly with Montreal, but I had no idea he pitched in two games for the 1968 Detroit Tigers. Odd couple of games, too: on consecutive days, he came in with a one-run lead, allowed a single to the first batter to tie the score, got out of the inning, and then the Tigers eventually won both games. In the second of those games, Face was in position to be the winning pitcher but the scorer invoked the "briefly and ineffectively" clause (the only out Face got was on the bases). He never pitched in the AL again but had a decent year with the 1969 Expos at the age of 41.

I never knew Face existed until the archives of Sporting News or Baseball Digest or something went up on Google and I spent a little time poking around in them. I don't even remember the nature of the article I read, but I became interested in him for about three days.

Heady times, man.

A short time later came the poster whose handle references someone having something against him.

Face's first name is supposed to be spelled with a capital R? ElRoy? I've never seen it printed that way before.

The only thing that makes sense, other than Noble being an idiot, is that Face never bothered telling anyone that his name should have been spelled ElRoy* but mentioned it to Noble during this conversation.** It's not like it's a typo, since it's listed that way at least twice in the piece. But like you, I've never seen it that way before.

* Auto Correct is really rebelling against me writing his name with a capital R.

** Wasn't there a guy on the Angels recently whose name had long been misspelled in every reference?

Now, John Hiller probably doesn't get mentioned any more. I guess if you're a certain age you remember him as the single-season record holder for saves.

and he did after coming back from a heart attack

one thing about Face:everyone knows (I guess) that his out pitch was the forkball, and I've heard it said that he was the first to throw the splitter. But his forkball was completely unrelated to the split-finger that's thrown today. Face's pitch was an off-speed, knuckleball-type pitch

[The forkball] must have been a tough pitch to deal with if you didn't see it very often. B-Ref tells me that the best hitter against Face, lifetime, was Willie Mays, which is unsurprising. But one of the worst was Ernie Banks. If one could figure out why, that would be fascinating.

I had heard of Face before this because I read a book on closers and something about the 1960 Pirates at around the same time. Face is only 5'8", which was even short for a pitcher at the time and it makes me wonder if he'd have been overlooked (no pun intended) if he had come up in this decade rather than the 1950s.

It was common in Face's day for publications like The Sporting News and Sports Illustrated to list his name as Roy Face. It's really only been after he retired that the common reference became ElRoy Face.

Face was the National League relief pitcher in the 1970's tabletop game "Superstar Baseball." That's where I was first introduced to him. Of course, the NL's catchers were Gabby Hartnett and Jimmie Wilson.

Face was the National League relief pitcher in the 1970's tabletop game "Superstar Baseball." That's where I was first introduced to him. Of course, the NL's catchers were Gabby Hartnett and Jimmie Wilson.

Remember Face well from the 1960 World Series - he had 3 saves, although the Yankees did have some success against him in Game 7 - even if the overall result still rankles a bit.

The Yankees actually hammered Face in game 7 to the tune of 6 hits and 4 runs (all earned) in 3 innings. He entered the game with the Pirates ahead by 4 to 1, and left with Pirates trailing 7 to 4. If it hadn't been for that Khrushchev-planted pebble, Face would have been seen as one of the World Series' premier goats.

We can argue whether the Church or the Comintern planted that pebble, but I will admit that either way it was one hell of a game, probably one of the 4 or 5 best game 7's ever. And it's extremely doubtful that the Yankees would have won the pennant that year if they'd been in the National League. That 55 to 27 run spread was far more flukish than the fact that the Pirates took a best of 7.

We can argue whether the Church or the Comintern planted that pebble, but I will admit that either way it was one hell of a game, probably one of the 4 or 5 best game 7's ever.

Bill James rated it the best Game 7 ever back in one of the mid 80s Abstracts. Nowadays the Morris game gets into the conversation.

And it's extremely doubtful that the Yankees would have won the pennant that year if they'd been in the National League.

I'm not so sure. The AL had three very good teams. People tend to forget that the Yankees won their last 15 in a row in 1960 to put the Orioles and White Sox away. On September 14 they were sitting in a virtual tie with Baltimore, with Chicago just two back and a crucial four-game set at home with the Orioles coming up. New York swept those four, then kept it going against the Senators and Red Sox to close it out.

The Pirates won 95 games, but their pitching staff wasn't very deep. For a good part of the year it was "Law and Friend and that's the end". Harvey Haddix didn't have a particularly good year (although he redeemed himself in the Series) and the Bucs had to make a late May trade for Vinegar Bend Mizell to stabilize the rotation. The bullpen behind Face was a mishmash of guys coming off injuries and young pitchers trying to find their way - again, the Pirates got key innings from late-season pickup Clem Labine, which let them rest Face a bit more down the stretch. That caught up to them in the World Series - especially when Law got hurt in a bit of horseplay in the clubhouse after the Pirates clinched the pennant, which forced Murtaugh to pull him earlier than he might have liked in Game 7. Milwaukee was probably a better team, but the Braves, as usual, had a huge hole at second base, age caught up to Johnny Logan at SS, and Don McMahon had a horrible year.

And it's extremely doubtful that the Yankees would have won the pennant that year if they'd been in the National League.

I'm not so sure. The AL had three very good teams. People tend to forget that the Yankees won their last 15 in a row in 1960 to put the Orioles and White Sox away. On September 14 they were sitting in a virtual tie with Baltimore, with Chicago just two back and a crucial four-game set at home with the Orioles coming up. New York swept those four, then kept it going against the Senators and Red Sox to close it out.

I watched every pitch of the four game Baltimore series that began that winning streak, and listened to every inning of every subsequent night game. I'm well aware of how they ended the season.

The Pirates won 95 games, but their pitching staff wasn't very deep. For a good part of the year it was "Law and Friend and that's the end". Harvey Haddix didn't have a particularly good year (although he redeemed himself in the Series) and the Bucs had to make a late May trade for Vinegar Bend Mizell to stabilize the rotation. The bullpen behind Face was a mishmash of guys coming off injuries and young pitchers trying to find their way - again, the Pirates got key innings from late-season pickup Clem Labine, which let them rest Face a bit more down the stretch. That caught up to them in the World Series - especially when Law got hurt in a bit of horseplay in the clubhouse after the Pirates clinched the pennant, which forced Murtaugh to pull him earlier than he might have liked in Game 7. Milwaukee was probably a better team, but the Braves, as usual, had a huge hole at second base, age caught up to Johnny Logan at SS, and Don McMahon had a horrible year.

-- MWE

My opinion is based on a very simple bit of logic:

The Pirates were never less than 5 games ahead from the middle of August to the end of the season, whereas the Yankees were in a dogfight all the way up through mid-September.

The National League was much the better league at that point.

Therefore, the Pirates would have finished ahead of the Yankees if the Yankees had been in the NL.

Three of the Pirates' four starters (Friend, Law, Mizell) had very good seasons, and even the weakest links in their everyday lineup (Maz and Virdon) were barely under 100 in OPS+.

By contrast, the Yankees had four regular players (Howard, Richardson, Kubek and Boyer) with OPS+ numbers of 80, 67, 96 and 89. Richardson's World Series performance was a complete fluke. And their staff ERA+ was 5 points lower than the Pirates', while competing in an inferior league.

There are three main reasons that most people figure the Yankees to have been the better team that year:

---The lopsided nature of the Yankees' 3 wins and the overall run differential in the World Series.

---The Pirates had no big name counterparts to Mantle and Maris and Ford.

---And the fact that the Pirates were a one year wonder, while the Yankees went on in 1961 to put up one of their many historic seasons.

But since we're talking about 1960 and not 1961, I don't buy it. The only real countering point that's even halfway plausible is to compare the two teams in the last six weeks of the regular season, when the Yankees had added two key parts, Bill Stafford and Dale Long. But since the issue is the entire season and not just from mid-August to the end of September, that doesn't negate the overriding point about league strength.

There are three main reasons that most people figure the Yankees to have been the better team that year:

---The lopsided nature of the Yankees' 3 wins and the overall run differential in the World Series.

---The Pirates had no big name counterparts to Mantle and Maris and Ford.

---And the fact that the Pirates were a one year wonder, while the Yankees went on in 1961 to put up one of their many historic seasons.

But since we're talking about 1960 and not 1961, I don't buy it. The only real countering point that's even halfway plausible is to compare the two teams in the last six weeks of the regular season, when the Yankees had added two key parts, Bill Stafford and Dale Long. But since the issue is the entire season and not just from mid-August to the end of September, that doesn't negate the overriding point about league strength.

You sir, are hideously underestimating the talents of those two infamous dancers, Mystique and Aura

But the best *teams* in it weren't better than the best teams in the AL, which is the relevant point.

Three of the Pirates' four starters (Friend, Law, Mizell) had very good seasons, and even the weakest links in their everyday lineup (Maz and Virdon) were barely under 100 in OPS+.

By contrast, the Yankees had four regular players (Howard, Richardson, Kubek and Boyer) with OPS+ numbers of 80, 67, 96 and 89. Richardson's World Series performance was a complete fluke. And their staff ERA+ was 5 points lower than the Pirates', while competing in an inferior league.

Despite the holes in the Yankees' offense, they still posted a team OPS+ of 108 (the Pirates in the NL were at 102). Mantle, Maris, and Skowron were not only better, but significantly better than any hitter the Pirates had, and the Berra/Lopez platoon combo was also excellent, which essentially made up for the shortcomings of the other guys. The Pirates didn't have any big holes, but nor did they have any monster seasons on offense, either.

The Yankees had a deeper pitching staff than the Pirates did. The Bucs' staff was front-loaded; Friend and Law threw nearly 40% of the Pirates' innings. Stengel spread out the innings more. Had the Pirates actually been in a closer race, Murtaugh's penchant for riding the hot hand might have backfired.

By the way best percentage for at least 20 decisions goes to Maddux with his 19-2 record .9048. Best record for at least 25 decisions goes to Ron Guidry, and his 25-3 record .8929. Best record for at least 30 decisions goes to Lefty Grove with his 31-4 record .8857

But the best *teams* in it weren't better than the best teams in the AL, which is the relevant point.

There's plenty of evidence for the league disparity**, which the adjusted OPS+ and ERA+ numbers don't take into account. There's no evidence for saying that the Orioles and White Sox were better than their NL counterparts, and the spread between the top and the bottom in the AL (39 games) was slightly higher than that in the NL (36 games).

Like I said, I think it would have been a terrific pennant race.

I think that the Yanks' acquisitions of Stafford and Long would have picked them up in the stretch, but by that point I suspect they would have had too much ground to make up for.

**Besides the bigger number of future HoFers in their primes, and besides the usual NL All-Star game domination, the NL won 58% of the interleague Spring training games that year, in a continuation of a dominance that had persisted since 1954. At some point "small sample size" becomes more of an evasion than a real argument, especially when there are no substantive pieces of evidence to counter the tangible evidence of NL superiority.